Major TV and movie studios are trying to round up "grassroots" support for new …

Share this story

It's no secret that major copyright owners like Viacom have been working with members of Congress on legislation to censor so-called “rogue sites” on the Internet. With today's introduction of the Stop Online Piracy Act, such legislation is finally moving forward in both the House and the Senate. Now all it needs is support—and how better to obtain that support than by passing out free muffins with a large chunk missing?

That was the Viacom strategy this morning, when employees received free “half muffins” with an attached label saying, “Looks like someone stole a chunk." The Mystery of the Missing Muffin is meant to remind workers that online infringement “means money out of your pocket." Viacom wants employees to start lobbying Congress directly on the issue, creating “grassroots” support for the bill from those who don't have a car and driver to take them to work.

This week is the company's "Content Theft Awareness Week," and an e-mail to employees made the stakes clear: "Jersey Shore has been viewed illegally online 125 million times this year. South Park almost 150 million times. And just a single raid can turn up 40,000 counterfeit SpongeBob products. You may not always see the effects—especially here in the US—but make no mistake: content theft is a global crime wave."

Employees who do show their support can earn "prizes like tickets to The Daily Show with Jon Stewart or VH1 Storytellers, MTV swag bags, and more."

Viacom has joined forces with NBC Universal, CBS, 20th Century Fox, Disney, Warner Bros., and various industry unions to launch Creative America, a site designed to harness this low-level employee energy. As you might expect, the site is filled with pictures of people hauling lights around, peering through cameras, and otherwise not looking rich, famous, or powerful as they ponder the letters they're going to write Congress.

(Thanks to our anonymous muffin-munching tipster for sending this in.)

166 Reader Comments

I wish Viacom would stop making these stupid analogies. Piracy is not theft, it's piracy! They are related, but different and both of them are wrong. I am sorry, but there is no moral justification for watching something for free that cost millions of dollars to make. Of course, content producers are guilty too, with DRM schemes that hurt paying customers while affecting pirates hardly at all, but this is not justification for piracy.

While I'm on the subject, many commentors seem to think that digitally distributed media should be significantly cheaper than traditional distribution channels. The simple fact is that distribution is only a small fraction of the total cost of producing content; with movies and TV, it is a tiny, tiny fraction. Because of this misconception, most internet content consumers are willing to pay less for media online that DVD-buying, Cable-subscribing consumers, whether in direct cost or watching ads. As long as this disparity continues, online distribution will remain the secondary channel for companies like Viacom.

I wish Viacom would stop making these stupid analogies. Piracy is not theft, it's piracy! They are related, but different and both of them are wrong. I am sorry, but there is no moral justification for watching something for free that cost millions of dollars to make. Of course, content producers are guilty too, with DRM schemes that hurt paying customers while affecting pirates hardly at all, but this is not justification for piracy.

While I'm on the subject, many commentors seem to think that digitally distributed media should be significantly cheaper than traditional distribution channels. The simple fact is that distribution is only a small fraction of the total cost of producing content; with movies and TV, it is a tiny, tiny fraction. Because of this misconception, most internet content consumers are willing to pay less for media online that DVD-buying, Cable-subscribing consumers, whether in direct cost or watching ads. As long as this disparity continues, online distribution will remain the secondary channel for companies like Viacom.

The hard truth is that there is not enough raw talent out there to meet our wasteful and lazy society's demand for entertainment. Hollywood is always hiring.

I disagree with that. I do think there are plent of raw talents out there. The problem is that the entertainment industry as a whole is risk adverse. They are comfortable with what they are making, they are comfortable with distribution methods and comfortable with what talents they have. More importantly, people are still willing to pay for whatever they serve up.

They don't want to budge from it because if something goes wrong, they won't be getting their bonuses this year.

While I'm on the subject, many commentors seem to think that digitally distributed media should be significantly cheaper than traditional distribution channels. The simple fact is that distribution is only a small fraction of the total cost of producing content; with movies and TV, it is a tiny, tiny fraction. Because of this misconception, most internet content consumers are willing to pay less for media online that DVD-buying, Cable-subscribing consumers, whether in direct cost or watching ads. As long as this disparity continues, online distribution will remain the secondary channel for companies like Viacom.

While this may be correct, it is ignoring how much the market has been changed by digital distribution. The consumer market that is associated with entertainment is gigantic. Everything from cell phones, to computers, to TV's, car stereos and some appliances now have the ability to feed people these things. All of these devices have been dropping in cost to the point where it's almost unusual for someone not to own something like this. Consumerism is part of society now, for better or worse, and to expect people to pay top dollar for entertainment that is so abundant is a tough sell.

I don't disagree with what you are saying, just that this overwhelming supply of devices and media has created this demand. It no longer seems right to charge what they do for these kinds of media since there is just so much of it. I can't even keep up with new releases of PC games anymore because my time is so segregated between everything available. If they would stop defining what markets they support, and instead support the markets the consumers desire half of the problem is already solved. They've essentially created the problem they are trying to fix, ignoring the obvious solution for the sake of profits and control. The only reason why it still is a secondary channel is due to their unwillingness to embrace it.

I'm a little confused here. Viacom gives its own employees some muffins along with a message that Viacom dislikes piracy. What makes this news? It's like reporting that the preacher spoke to his own choir today.

But hey, at least it triggers another multiple-page comment thread full of oft-repeated comments about how content prices should be lower, if it sucked less people would buy more, piracy is not theft, etc. Always a good thing, right?

also, I don't understand why anyone would pay for anything they could get for free. I would never pay for anything if I didn't have to. What's so great about paying for stuff?

You're joking right? If you don't pay the creators of something you enjoy, then they'll be forced to stop making that thing you enjoy.

And if people don't want to pay for something and the creator has gone out of business then the market has spoken. Whether or not people view media for free if they don't value it enough to pay for it then so be it. If I could only access the shows I watch by subscribing to cable I'd simply live without and do something more productive with my time, as many people would and probably should anyway.

"Why not just make shit available to me at reasonable prices in reasonable mediums? That has to be cheaper and more profitable than lobbying."

Luxury content not being provided to you in the format of your choice does not give you the right to take it anyway.

Also, all the Viacom properties I'm interested in watching (Daily Show, Colbert Report, South Park) are available legally for free through ad-supported streaming on Viacom's websites. They're one of the most pro-active companies in getting their content onto the internet in legal and accessible ways, so I don't so how this is an argument at all.

You say "Take" as if someone is depriving them of property. Making a copy of a digital work is not the same thing as depriving someone of anything. Secondly, there isnt any concrete evidence that copyright infringement is causing lost sales. If anything its related to the fact that they didnt get their shit together when they had a chance to get stuff out on the net for a resonable price, and now they are suffering for it.

Because you want to give your money after the content has been produced, and once you know it is content you want. The media companies on the other hand, would like / need the money up front, so that they can make the content in the 1st place - with out taking a 2nd mortgage on the house, since no bank anywhere ever loans money to a movie. That's smart, since most entertainment ventures end in dismal failure.

If you'd like to pay a 'reasonable price' pop on over to Kickstarter and get ahead of the game - otherwise understand, that just like with drugs, when yo pay for content you are paying for both the successful shows that you like, and all the failed ones that no one did.

And there in lies the problem. People don't want to pay for things they do not want and it is just plain unjust if you are forced to have to buy 10 pieces of crap so that you can have one piece of what you really want. You don't see this practice in restaurants - where arguably there would be dishes that no one eats; you don't see this behaviour in clothing; heck pick any other industry. These media companies are the only ones who have got this amazingly skewed notion that this is somehow not only ok; this is the only way it has to be and anything contrarry to it ought to be declared illegal!

They keep talking about piracy; had they not been doing 'robbery' in the first place, people would not have resorted to piracy. Can;t use your disk in that CD player which is attached to you computer; you have to buy that overpriced and poor-performing DVR from us to watch this show; etc; etc; ...

While I'm on the subject, many commentors seem to think that digitally distributed media should be significantly cheaper than traditional distribution channels. The simple fact is that distribution is only a small fraction of the total cost of producing content; with movies and TV, it is a tiny, tiny fraction. Because of this misconception, most internet content consumers are willing to pay less for media online that DVD-buying, Cable-subscribing consumers, whether in direct cost or watching ads. As long as this disparity continues, online distribution will remain the secondary channel for companies like Viacom.

While this may be correct, it is ignoring how much the market has been changed by digital distribution. The consumer market that is associated with entertainment is gigantic. Everything from cell phones, to computers, to TV's, car stereos and some appliances now have the ability to feed people these things. All of these devices have been dropping in cost to the point where it's almost unusual for someone not to own something like this. Consumerism is part of society now, for better or worse, and to expect people to pay top dollar for entertainment that is so abundant is a tough sell.

I don't disagree with what you are saying, just that this overwhelming supply of devices and media has created this demand. It no longer seems right to charge what they do for these kinds of media since there is just so much of it. I can't even keep up with new releases of PC games anymore because my time is so segregated between everything available. If they would stop defining what markets they support, and instead support the markets the consumers desire half of the problem is already solved. They've essentially created the problem they are trying to fix, ignoring the obvious solution for the sake of profits and control. The only reason why it still is a secondary channel is due to their unwillingness to embrace it.

I see what you're saying here and I think you make a valid point. In many ways, media companies have simply been slow to adapt to the changes in the marketplace brought on by digital distribution. Consider TV. With traditional television, a network can only distribute one show at a time over the same channel. Cable companies have to pick certain shows for certain time slots, attempting to match consumer that like one show with consumers that are watching TV at that time. However, with digital distribution, it is possible to distribute many shows at the same time, so that a network could hit more target markets at the same time and theoretically make more money. For example, they could show a crime thriller like Fringe at the same time as a feel-good family broadcast like America's Got Talent, assuming that the markets for these shows don't significantly overlap.

At the same time, [roducers have to balance that against what consumers are willing to pay for content over the internet. Like you said, media consumption has become so wide-spread that many consumers almost expect it be free and always available. This is working against the producer, who cannot charge as much for their goods. However, this market may eventually become larger than traditional TV such that the decreased margin is outweighed by the larger market size, but right now that is simply not the case. For someone like me who lives on the coast and works in technology for a living, it is easy to forget that traditional TV is still immensely popular all over the country. Just think, American Idol is still hugely popular, but I don't know a single person who has watched that show in years.

Is digital distribution the future? Yes. Is there still currently a lot more money in traditional distribution? Yes! That's just the cold hard facts.

I'd really like to hurt, slowly and painfully, the next person who calls piracy "theft". They're not the same thing, and no amount of BUT BUT BUT OUR MONEYS and wishful thinking and lobbying is going to change that.

dacjames and chaoswarriorx: I almost read through your comments without laughing, almost. You MIGHT have a point if the industry wasn't setting profit records year after year after year. You MIGHT have a point if actors weren't making millions of dollars on a single movie. You MIGHT have a point if the industry wasn't bribing Congress to get copyright terms extended into forever. You MIGHT have a point if they weren't putting DRM on everything they sell. At some point in the future, that work is suppose to return to the public. How can anyone preserve it if they can't legally copy it? You think dvd players will be available in 50 years? You can't even find a vcr anymore and its been what, 5 years? As far as I am concerned, these content creators are not living up to their end of the copyright contract. As such, they should lose their copyrights. I say:

Anybody who grabs a bite off a thing (apple,piece of bread) gets a 'c' on the impression. I have a web site with a picture I took of a sandwich with a single bite taken from it. I considered making it as it was a serious question - the duality of the photo,or,the fact that a bite had been taken from it.

Makes art for the question. You cannot 'eat a photo'. AND a photo does not SAY who had taken a bite from the sandwich. Yet you consider it being replicated,and replicated, so that the question continues. Knowing that neither a bite of a sandwich,nor and image of a sandwich,is going to fulfill hunger,or fix the inquisitive question of just 'who took a bite of the sandwich ?

VIAcom is so hard to see you need to buy toothpaste from them.

- Apples Apple,has a bite taken out of it,doesn't it ? I can't see from here.

Then you look at some time, or times in the past some stringy oily haired thin female smiles taking a bite of an apple. You dont think that,in that reference,your going to replicate it , do you ? Who would want to ? But why does this always have her walking away with a smile,and you left to wonder ? Should you be ?

Look media companies, piracy reduces the value of your product. It's not theft, it's dilution. You can't legislate a higher value, no matter how many bullsh-- laws you buy.

Fortunately, digital distribution has virtually no incremental cost per copy. Get with the program. Sell digital copies - that are not DRM-f*cked - at a lower price. You will sell more of them, and bingo! The net profit has come right back. Everybody's happy.

The funny thing is that this stunt perfectly describes what they have been doing all along. Namely, creating propaganda that there has been such astronomical theft and that it is hurting consumers.

No one stole a chunk of the muffin, they're only giving you half of what the muffin should be. Sounds about the same as the kind of hyper-inflated rhetoric these content companies drum up over the "billions of dollars" of "stolen" content.

also, I don't understand why anyone would pay for anything they could get for free. I would never pay for anything if I didn't have to. What's so great about paying for stuff?

You're joking right? If you don't pay the creators of something you enjoy, then they'll be forced to stop making that thing you enjoy.

And if people don't want to pay for something and the creator has gone out of business then the market has spoken. Whether or not people view media for free if they don't value it enough to pay for it then so be it. If I could only access the shows I watch by subscribing to cable I'd simply live without and do something more productive with my time, as many people would and probably should anyway.

That's true, as far as it goes. But also remember that if people do want to pay for something (or are at least willing to do so), that that is also the market speaking.

A concrete example: I have the Hub channel on my cable. I can watch My Little Pony (pause for your laughter... done? okay) episodes whenever they come on, and I have a DVR so I can record them as well. They're also available on the internet within literal minutes of each show being aired. And I paid for the season pass to download the episodes from iTunes.

Seem stupid? Why shell out $50 when I don't have to? Because they aren't making me. I don't have to pirate the shows; Hasbro (owner of MLP) is LETTING people post the shows. And use their intellectual property all over the damn internet without a fuss. Why on earth would they do that? Because they're not a damn Hollywood "content provider", they're a toy company. They use the videos to sell the toys, and they understand that everyone loving their show to death all over the internet sells their toys.

But even the toy companies won't do that for long, if they don't see a return coming their way -- so I shell out $50 to encourage that behavior. Money's the language of the market; I'm telling them atta-boy!!!

And I wait until BluRays are in the $10 bin before I think of buying them (except a gotta-have movie, which is one a year, maybe?)

And I don't buy DVDs at all anymore. Cancelled Netflix. Thinking of ditching cable, too. Those are also messages in the marketplace. Hollywood ain't listening, though, are they?

I thought recipe in itself which has been directly reproduced and sold without attribution was also considered copyright violation as long as the work was copyrighted?

EDIT:Found a phrasing from US Copyright office :

Quote:

"Mere listings of ingredients as in recipes, formulas, compounds, or prescriptions are not subject to copyright protection. However, when a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when there is a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for copyright protection."

So ingredients aren't copyrightable but explanations and directions are. There also seems to be specific rules surrounding derivative works as well.

I don't think it's really the directions that are subject to copyright in practice. As I understand it instructions like:

Quote:

Preheat oven to 450Bake 20 minutes or until brown

would not be copyrighted.However, instructions like:

Quote:

Preheat oven to 450. My grandmother used to use to tell me stories of her homeland while we were waiting for the oven to preheat. We'd halfway pay attention while licking the batter off the spoons. Bake 20 minutes or until brown. When this kind of cake browns, it's such a beautiful thing. It reminds me of autumn leaves.

Preheat oven to 450. My grandmother used to use to tell me stories of her homeland while we were waiting for the oven to preheat. We'd halfway pay attention while licking the batter off the spoons. Bake 20 minutes or until brown. When this kind of cake browns, it's such a beautiful thing. It reminds me of autumn leaves.

would get copyright protection.

You have no idea how thankful I am that my cookbooks don't read like that. I shudder at the thought of trying to decipher instructions from a rambling anecdote.

While I'm on the subject, many commentors seem to think that digitally distributed media should be significantly cheaper than traditional distribution channels. The simple fact is that distribution is only a small fraction of the total cost of producing content; with movies and TV, it is a tiny, tiny fraction. Because of this misconception, most internet content consumers are willing to pay less for media online that DVD-buying, Cable-subscribing consumers, whether in direct cost or watching ads. As long as this disparity continues, online distribution will remain the secondary channel for companies like Viacom.

That's true. People tend to think that streaming should cost less than, say, a disc that contains the same material.

And it should. Not because of anything to do with the cost of producing the content. But because people view streaming as providing them less value than a physical disc does. It's not just about watching the movie.

Jot over to blu-ray.com some time. If you signup for a free account, you can put into their system all the BluRays and DVDs that you own. Why would someone do that? To show of their collection.

People collect movies. They like to look, and show off to others, that row upon row of cases with the shiny discs inside. Doing that has value to them. If they stream it, they can't collect it, except perhaps on a hard drive. And unlike a hard drive, someone can hold the physical case with all the nice artwork on it and hug it and kiss it and call it George.

The market is screaming, SCREAMING, that streaming is less valuable to the market than physical discs are. And Hollywood (and you) responds with explanations of cost. We don't care. Our purchasing decisions are based on value to US, not costs to THEM. If they can't bring us stuff for what we're willing to pay, then they go out of business. And that is what they're really afraid of. The value of entertainment is falling.

Of course the value of entertainment is falling, look at how damn much of it there is! It's a commodity anymore. And when commodities rise in supply, the price falls, because demand rises more slowly than the supply does. And that is why Hollywood is so fucking frightened. Their model used to be: you've got 3, maybe 4 weeks to see this film in the theater, and then it will be gone for the rest of your life. Then with TV, people could wait a few years and it would show up there. Then with cable, there were so many channels that had to have stuff to fill the time, that any one film would be bound to show up at some point, and the TV shows themselves would be in reruns. Then came VHS and Betamax, then DVDs... Now we got satellite, streaming, and torrenting. We've got so much entertainment shit that people download stuff they know they won't watch for years, if ever.

Congress can pass their silly little ink scratches on paper, but that won't save Hollywood. Their world is gone, and these are just the desperate scrabblings along the edge of the cliff that they're sliding over the side of.

Luxury content not being provided to you in the format of your choice does not give you the right to take it anyway.

For starters, it's copying, not taking. Very, very big difference.Second, even if I don't have the right, the media giants should realise I'm going to do it anyway, and the only way to stop me is to compete.

Quote:

Also, all the Viacom properties I'm interested in watching (Daily Show, Colbert Report, South Park) are available legally for free through ad-supported streaming on Viacom's websites. They're one of the most pro-active companies in getting their content onto the internet in legal and accessible ways, so I don't so how this is an argument at all.

Good, but not good enough. No downloads, just poor quality streams.And remember, consumers don't care if the way the content is made accessible is legal or not.

Funny thing here... Every musician, filmmaker, comedian, and otherwise creative person that I know steals content just like everybody else. It used to be pretty common for people to exchange tapes and whatnot, but clearly it was not as widespread... but I'd say it's pretty safe to say it's the creative people that have always done the most stealing, as well as the most buying, because there's as much of a compulsion to consume as there is to create... and when you don't have money, you find a way.

When I meet someone who doesn't steal music, they're usually somebody that is either 1) wealthy, or 2) doesn't listen to music.

While I'm on the subject, many commentors seem to think that digitally distributed media should be significantly cheaper than traditional distribution channels. The simple fact is that distribution is only a small fraction of the total cost of producing content; with movies and TV, it is a tiny, tiny fraction. Because of this misconception, most internet content consumers are willing to pay less for media online that DVD-buying, Cable-subscribing consumers, whether in direct cost or watching ads. As long as this disparity continues, online distribution will remain the secondary channel for companies like Viacom.

That's not true, value is in my eyes as a consumer not yours or the distributor or creator. If I don't see value in something then I have a right to not buy it at that price, and if enough people agree with me the product comes down in price. Now that doesn't stand to say that the content producer can cut costs or stop producing but then they probably won't make money either. And if a content producer is willing to spend big money I would suspect they expect great returns and get them.

And the argument also negates where things are heading and how TV is changing. People are starting to have more freedom and choice how entertainment reaches their lives and it's going to continue that way. Not now but soon digital distribution will be de-facto. Then something else will take over and the cycle will continue.

The sad thing to think about is those clamoring for change are going to be the dinosaurs fighting to stay the course when I'm old and grey. But hey that's how the circle of life goes...

This week is the company's "Content Theft Awareness Week," and an e-mail to employees made the stakes clear: "Jersey Shore has been viewed illegally online 125 million times this year. South Park almost 150 million times. And just a single raid can turn up 40,000 counterfeit SpongeBob products. You may not always see the effects—especially here in the US—but make no mistake: content theft is a global crime wave."

Well hell. Regardless of what a person thinks about the content industry, one thing that seems pretty apparent is that the laws they're after can have significant applicability outside of their stated intent. In ways that quite a few folks feel are dangerous. The issue of IP is small potatos in comparison to the potential consequences of the various proposed legislation.

Personally, I look at things like this - if I decide that you're a nice, decent and generous person and/or corporation, I will treat you nicely in kind. In fact, I default to treating folks that way. If you act in a manner that I perceive to tread on my rights, then at that point I feel under no obligation to care about your rights. Shit on me, then I won't feel bad about shitting on you. Like if a guy tries to kill me, then in my eyes he has forfeited his right to life.

My opinion is that the content industry are greedy, super rich assholes who will do anything, destroy anything, screw over anyone, and re-write any law in the name of maintaining and expanding their wealth. They're willing to destroy my rights, and thusly I don't treat theirs with any respect either. They simply are not good people.

Everyone has their own opinion, and they're free to it. I'm free to disagree. In the end, with all the wealth and power at their disposal, they will win and get their way anyway. So I don't understand why the likes of Corporate_Goon bothers with arguing. You're going to get your way, dude. It's as though they feel righteous about it and they want everyone else to agree that they're good guys. Be satisfied with your inevitable victory. You'll get it. But yours are not the good guys, and they never will be. They're the bullies.

I wish Viacom would stop making these stupid analogies. Piracy is not theft, it's piracy! They are related, but different and both of them are wrong. I am sorry, but there is no moral justification for watching something for free that cost millions of dollars to make. Of course, content producers are guilty too, with DRM schemes that hurt paying customers while affecting pirates hardly at all, but this is not justification for piracy.

While I'm on the subject, many commentors seem to think that digitally distributed media should be significantly cheaper than traditional distribution channels. The simple fact is that distribution is only a small fraction of the total cost of producing content; with movies and TV, it is a tiny, tiny fraction. Because of this misconception, most internet content consumers are willing to pay less for media online that DVD-buying, Cable-subscribing consumers, whether in direct cost or watching ads. As long as this disparity continues, online distribution will remain the secondary channel for companies like Viacom.

You make a good point on the realities of the economic situation. Movies do cost millions to make, and if they can't make those millions back, they are going to have to resort to lower production values and possibly lower quality. This is most pressing for existing media where the money is already spent: if people don't pay, they'll lose money. We here the same thing about the residuals that show/song writers depend on. Clearly, there are a lot of people who stand to lose if people don't pay because they have been banking on the "invest, create, and then charge money forever" business model. There certainly will be financial growing pains if the market cannot bear the same price as we move to digital distribution.

Where I disagree with you is on your point on the immorality watching/listening/reusing "something for free that cost millions of dollars to make." While I agree that we should, as a society, agree upon a system that allows content producers to recover the costs of their work, I don't agree that producers have a god-given right to charge for each use of their work --this is simply the social contract we find ourselves in at the moment.

Movies, songs, and books permeate and create culture. They create shared and common experiences that tie us all together. Many people can recall particular artists that were especially influential on them in their youth. If we are talking about morality, I would say that it is immoral to deny someone access to a shared cultural narrative based on their ability to pay. Typically, the purpose of libraries has been to grant cultural access to the public without direct payment. Where will libraries be in 20 years since they will have no ability to lend out digital works for free? Are we okay with this as a society?

I think that the reason that this issue rubs people the wrong way on an emotional level is that our current laws run counter to much of the human experience. When we find something great, we naturally want to share it with our family and friends --under copyright law this is illegal. When we immerse ourselves in the fictitious world of a movie or book, we naturally fill in the details from our imagination. Yet someone cannot simply pick up the story where it left off and make their own book or movie --again illegal. How many great new Star Wars movies never got made because George Lucas would never allow it?

I would say that copyright is simply a crude legal instrument used to try to fund creative works. It serves a pragmatic purpose, but does not stand on any sort of moral ground. Rather than keep increasing the rigor, sophistication, and extent to which copyright is enforced, I think it is time to consider changing the very nature of copyright itself so that it better aligns with the views in society. Ironically, I think (hope) that it is the ever increasing power of rightsholders and the increasing legal might of copyright that will bring about this change. Nothing can undermine the legitimacy of copyright more than a public who begins to view it as an outdated, repressive dogma perpetuated by rich corporations.

While I'm on the subject, many commentors seem to think that digitally distributed media should be significantly cheaper than traditional distribution channels. The simple fact is that distribution is only a small fraction of the total cost of producing content; with movies and TV, it is a tiny, tiny fraction. Because of this misconception, most internet content consumers are willing to pay less for media online that DVD-buying, Cable-subscribing consumers, whether in direct cost or watching ads. As long as this disparity continues, online distribution will remain the secondary channel for companies like Viacom.

I don't know for sure about cd/dvd/bd but the print industry has claimed for years that every single price increase was due to the rising cost of printing (paper, ink, binding costs). Now, using their own logic, why does an e-book cost the same as a bound paperback? At amazon I can often find the print editions of what I want cheaper than the kindle version.

Jot over to blu-ray.com some time. If you signup for a free account, you can put into their system all the BluRays and DVDs that you own. Why would someone do that? To show of their collection.

People collect movies. They like to look, and show off to others, that row upon row of cases with the shiny discs inside. Doing that has value to them. If they stream it, they can't collect it

More importantly, if they can collect it, nobody can take it away from them unless someone robs them.

With DRM servers dropping out of the sky it means that suddenly, all you paid for is worth nothing because some computer is missing that says that you have access to it. What is yours is suddenly taken away from you - whatever the reason is (server was broken, or it was just not profitable enough anymore to keep it online anymore). With licenses or terms changing without warning you'll be deprived of what you paid for and as a customer, you have to suck it up and be happy that it went on for as long as it lasted.

Corporate_Goon wrote:

And again, not being able to access the show the second you want it in the format you want it *does not* give you the moral authority to take it anyway.

It is a crime against capitalism and profitability to not make your product available to the widest audience possible. It's not like you have a shortage of product - that's impossible thanks to the nature of it.

You want to sell? Sell to anyone who shows up with the cash - limiting the number of buyers is the stupidest thing ever unless you want to cater to a premium market, which TV shows certainly are not. They're lowest common denominator.

Instead, these companies are hampered by distributor agreements. Physical location no longer matters - as long as you show up with the cash. That's what the internet is, and it's immensely powerful because you no longer have to sign some contract with some dude in a harbor who's the sole distributor.

Furthermore, "makers"? Funding is interchangeable; it doesn't matter where the money comes from as long as it enables the actual makers to do something. Whether Viacom is paying or whatever other company does not matter one bit as long as the money's there on time. "Enablers" doesn't sound as sexy, though, and "copyright infringement" does not have the punch-in-the-stomach effect of "theft".

They're also pro-active in getting it online in retarded fashion (though they are admittedly no worse than Hulu). Showing the same ad over and over again in one online viewing of an episode is brainless. There's no channel surfing going on when streaming, so there's no benefit to repeating the same ad in multiple ad breaks. Sometimes, the same ad is repeated back-to-back in a single ad break!

It is a time tested technique. If you remember the product when you are offered a choice, you will pick the product whose name seems most familiar.

A similar effect is often phrased as "Say it often enough and it is true". Meaning that if someone tells you that something is true repeatedly you are more likely to ignore evidence that what was said is false.

The more often the program break ad tells you that the sawdust flavored muffin is a tasty treat, the more likely you are to purchase that particular brand of sawdust flavored muffin and truly enjoy it because "Everyone knows how good they taste". It has to be true since you heard it said so many times

Oh cry me a river. Your prices and formats forced the situation: your dinosaur business practices were too slow to catch up and make what could have been the pivotal point in your future income. You screwed your own pooch.

"Why not just make shit available to me at reasonable prices in reasonable mediums? That has to be cheaper and more profitable than lobbying."

Luxury content not being provided to you in the format of your choice does not give you the right to take it anyway.

Also, all the Viacom properties I'm interested in watching (Daily Show, Colbert Report, South Park) are available legally for free through ad-supported streaming on Viacom's websites. They're one of the most pro-active companies in getting their content onto the internet in legal and accessible ways, so I don't so how this is an argument at all.

You forget that a lot of people living outside US cannot access any of these shows! These companies are not interested in that, even more they try to block any access to these media by any means. They like to fragment the world in region to charge differently and offer modified versions (censored) of the shows.

I live outside the US, and I get the content through Viacom's Canadian affiliates, CTV and The Comedy Network.

And again, not being able to access the show the second you want it in the format you want it *does not* give you the moral authority to take it anyway. Wait for it to come out on DVD and buy a copy, if you want the content so badly. Or apply for a job at Viacom and change their corporate policy.

I always find it funny that not paying for content is theft but it's ok for companies not to make that content available or set wildly different prices per region. Companies are always saying they need the "free market" but when it comes to content there is no such freedom. The entire DVD region thing should be abolished by law because it goes against that free market. I cannot buy a DVD in the US and play it at home in Belgium because of that. Same with online content: most of it is blocked when you're from the wrong region. I wonder when A Game of Thrones airs in Europe for example. Strangely enough I know people who have seen al episodes less than a day after they aired in the US... Media companies should get their collective head out of the sand and make their content available online on a global scale. Otherwise you'll find it on bittorrent.